Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 28, 2014 2:30am-3:01am PDT

2:30 am
so when you're talking about rh d one neighborhoods that have the cc and rs that's something i'm sympathetic to the arguments 69 very limited geography it should be take into account in addressing those o this subject today and it's been raised in the past. i'm supportive of this elective it's long overdue and thank you xhooupt >> thank you. i want to thank you all for your feedback on this complicated elective. two remaining issues around gene. i understand that the dbi as city attorney harassing have come up with language to address hopefully and protect the
2:31 am
aminity of homeowners who don't have hazards and i want to ask the city attorney to reading record what he proposes and thank you for your work and dbi >> deputy city attorney john gibner again. we suggest adding language to the end of section one 06 a point one .3 b titled imminent subsequential hazards. based on information provided by applicant unless the standard a identified. so colleagues, i think that addresses the concerns i've
2:32 am
heard from folks so if there are additional questions if this works i'll be happy to support that amendment >> that's definitely stronger language. is there a motion to adapt without objection >> on the rh n d i'll say a couple of things i absolutely ago with the density diversity. we have many parts of city that are being tremendously taxed. and it is the intense it neighborhoods we have so far we have technical in law that are dispersed throughout the city i'm uncomfortable with carving out a set of neighborhoods that
2:33 am
being said i'm okay with supporting an amendment that says that nothing in the ordinance is intended to change the property owners under the current rocky mountain u agreement. i think we should carve out rh one d i prefer to discuss it at the full boards given a supervisor yee is not here to talk about that. and rest awe assured that supervisor yee as - has reflected his opinion so this will include language to among it clear we're not trying to interfere with existing contracts but we'll defer this
2:34 am
to the fell board >> i agree with that. i'm glad to see the map of the rh d to get a scope by understand what that will entail at the end. i know it's hard to get numbers but i'd like to hear supervisor yee's feedback so it will leaguerly impact his district but i'll agree with the amendment that president you china has offered >> i agree that kneeing should be part of the conversation so we'll have 8 days between now and the full board. i'm a big fan of in law unit i'm supporting legislation in the castro earring area but i want
2:35 am
to be sensitive to other perspectives implicit in other parts of the city. so any other comments. colleagues and i want to - do you want to take the cc and r >> i'm comfortable we can have our neighbors here to make it clear this legislation was not meant to impact that. >> if i may i'd - i understand the amendment but we may want to word smith it a little bit a after this meeting submit it. >> president chiu as articulated an amendment and we'll take that amendment and tinkering of the language b will go to the full board. >> it's not impacting the cc
2:36 am
and rs. >> so an amendment has been put forward and articulated by supervisor chiu colleagues what can he have a motion. >> so moved. >> supervisor kim. >> i really want to appreciate the work that supervisor chiu said on that complicated elective this board has made efforts to support that and understand that in-laws are an important sector of our market 10 percent is what i read and they tend to be a affordable housing unit. 10 percent. i understand that many of our homeowners are struggling as well in the city and he rent it an important part ever their income in paying off their
2:37 am
mortgage and families can afford to live here. i have a number of questions which i brought up throughout this hearing. this is any first time in being engaged in this conversation the district i represent doesn't have a lot of in law units. i think overall this is one question we're allowing an exception for homeowners to raise their property value without raising fees. i want to get a sense of what they have to do to legalize their units that's a philosophical question but owe i also know there's not a a lot of
2:38 am
carrots i'm concerned about the personal incentive and worried about the unseen consequences for the tenant that are in those units that are legal but therefore nor affordable and it will be helpful to hear from a number of other groups. i'm more supportive of this locomotive then when i walked in. i'm meeting with dbi on wednesday and i'm hoping to have time to ask a number of questions i'm curious because one of the studies was down on supervisor avalos district so i want to have an understanding of
2:39 am
equalization process. and so i think i can get there on tuesday. i want some more questions answered i'm not ready to support this legislation today, i personally have questions i think i can get done before tuesday but if it's without recommendation i'll support it >> supervisor how would you feel if we kept this in committee one more week. >> i'm not sure i he was understanding your timing but i'm happy to get all my questions addressed and hopefully, will be ready for next week. >> i'm looking at the chair. i want to make sure about next
2:40 am
week so committee we're a little bit backlogged on the changed >> again, i know this is taken a lot of committee time so i would prefer if this would move out with positive recommendation and hope we'll resolve those questions and you've laid out why this legislation has been difficult you might want to squeeze more fees out of the homeowners on the other hand, you're not sure that the homeowners will have enough money to do this. we wanted to make is volunteer and allow cost we are going to monitor this ever 6 months and come back and reaccess so see. >> and bay i want to compliment your officer of how much thought was put into it.
2:41 am
and you tried to prevent a negative on or about to protect the homeowner or tenant. i see how there are a balance of measures in the legislation. i think because of the complexity of the legislation i need more time but you appreciate i think it is clear >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you very much. i too want to echo a few of the comments that supervisor kim's made. coming to this hearing with as much of an open mind as i think. i think we heard from a lion share of public comment from the folks on the west side of the city but i want to give an idea of what's happening where houses have in law units and i'm
2:42 am
finding many of the in law unites are rented to section 8 voucher holders it's important because it's a fragile population if their unable to meet the market and pay the market rent of housing need a section 8. this is nuclear in this sense this is an issue you'll see an entire section of the city. i want to support the comments i'll be happy to move this out of committee but uncomfortable supporting with a positive recommendations. and would would also enjoy a few more days to understand those issue we've got studies from the excelsior but want to talk about to property owners and dig deeper in the dog patch
2:43 am
neighborhood. also to the neighbors that come out and talk about the concerns of how this legislation will impact their neighborhood. we need to be mindful there's a wave of change coming across the city across the south eastern part of the city and neighborhood of district 3, 6 and 10 and to some degree parts of 11. we as one city need to be mindful of our recreational responsibility of expecting the fact people are moving into san francisco and must create smart policies to receive people and not kind of live in a bubble and
2:44 am
inflate or trick ourselves into believing that people won't come into the neighborhood. with that said, folks in district 7 in particular are expressed a concern about the changing dynamics of the neighborhood. but it is a reality there will be some influx and some changes. i hoped we'll be able to create policies that will soften this below for a smoother transition and we're more inadequately expecting the influx of people that will be coming beyond the conversations of housing and making sure we have infrastructure and parks and open space on the western side of the city you enjoy those types of of the lecturers but
2:45 am
there on the south side of the city we've got transportation challenges to address. so for this conversation we're here to discuss housing and mr. chiu thank you and for your leadership. i'm again open to the discussion around in-laws. i want to go on record for recognizing the in law units in the assessing and i'm happy to support in without a positive recommendation >> supervisor kim. >> you brought up an interesting conversation i'm interested in the section 8 who you report to and what address do you report. >> so i think the question acres from the spelling the last name of the legality of it
2:46 am
there's section 8 vouchers to keep the main house from going into foreclosure but how to get the legal units to a legal place. you think about the affordable housing and the influx of african-american and the deplorable conditions in the illegal units those are of great concern for me >> so thank you colleagues. i just want to reiterate in terms of where i'm comfortable. first of all, i want to say a president chiu and staff have had conversations and they've been open and receptive to convince for me and my staff and
2:47 am
stakeholders across the community both to any colleagues on the board i'd encourage you to talk to president chiu and his staff they're open. so it's a little bit unclear why there are more questions remaining now. i want to encourage you to talk to them they're very receptive. i just want to among a couple of points. first we're role tubing keeping people stable in their housing now. i know the next item is going to deal with the ellis act evictions but right now in this city where rents are more than $3,000 a month on average we're trying to keep people in their homes that's the most important thing. and i view this legislation as
2:48 am
part of that goal in terms of keeping people stable in their housing and including the section 8 housing vouchers. that's how i view this legislation. and that's why it's incredibly important in terms of the rh one d neighborhoods. i'm open to putting this with positive recommendation and happy to do that without recommendation >> my prospective i'd like to answer the questions colleagues that you still have i'm happy to keep it here in committee which i think once we work through those it would be helpful helpful to move together i suggest we keep it in committee. while this proposal is not the
2:49 am
only silver bullet the in-laws are an incredible parrot of our housing stock and legal listing this will keep our citizens here and i'll address whatever questions you have it's a large legislation and hopefully, we'll move this out next week >> okay supervisor kim. >> again, i was going to make an offer to move it out of committee with recommendations. >> again, i'd like to be able to get you to a support position. obviously i may not have answered outlining all or questions >> i think the hearing was a thorough hearing it wasn't i have a number of questions. but i didn't want to take up our
2:50 am
hearing committee that's why i asked to move this out of committee we can keep this here most of my questions hopefully, will be answered by monday so hopefully, we, call the item again and have to move >> if it's at the case what i'm hearing colleagues our potentially inclined to recommend this he know we have a busy committee but hopefully with the advocates in the room we'll talk about this and get it to the right place. >> then supervisor kim or supervisor cowen it's our opinion. >> i like to make a motion to move it out of committee without
2:51 am
a recommendation to the full board. >> cohen as made a motion to submit in the to the full board without recommendation. >> i support. >> commissioners, can we take this without objection? >> i know we'll have more conversation. >> thank you public the conversation will continue. >> okay. thank you everyone why don't we give folks a few seconds. i would ask folks can take their conversations anti into the hallway. thank you.
2:52 am
thank you >> we're verymoment.
2:53 am
>> okay. our recess recess as come to an item. call item 5 >> it's at the ordinance to mitigate adverse impacts for the tenant rerecognition avoidance payment. >> and this was amendment last protect supervisor campos. >> i want to note a couple of points one we have some follow-up information from the controller's office specific from ted egging can the chief environmentalist in the
2:54 am
calculation terms of the rental differential will be made. i know ted will be here to testify on that. and i wanted to if i may have a followup a brief follow-up with the executive director of the rent board. in specifically to talk about the issue of landlord hardship and i just want to be clear for the record that, in fact, there's a process that's been fold by the rent board in determining that while the standard may be different than a tenant hardship that stated exists. i want to use this opportunity to ask that is wolf to the chair
2:55 am
come up >> yes. ms. wolf. >> executive director of the rent board supervisors. i hope that you received the decisions that i've forwarded to you via e-mail how the department has dealt with the landlord hardship we've dealt with it less frequent than the attempt hardships. while we don't have the same standard for tenant hardship were we use the hud delores that tenant should not be packing paying more than 33 percent that didn't work for landlord hardship but the the landlords must receive a fair return that's our guiding principle and what we do is we take a look at
2:56 am
the landlord situation and obviously, the goal is to while we want to prevent tenant displacement but we don't want the landlord to lose the building i forwarded the hardship application where the landlords give us their expenditures and income there from their property and we want to it didn't make the liability go away but we have a payment schedule so the landlord is not deprived of the things of life >> thank you for being here and a clarification i have looked at the hardship levitation and i'll say i support increasing the ellis act relocation assistance
2:57 am
but i'm interested in the hardship issue despite some of the claims we can there know there are so-called mom and pop landlords and even if they're a tiny moisture of what's happening they still deserve fair treatment they don't have to be a sizeable number. and so i looked at the applications on the tenant and i'm a speefrt of the tenant process where they have to list their >> may i ask you to turn your cell phones. >> i'm a supporter of the process to list their householder income and their
2:58 am
assets including retirement little and non-lick i didn't do account like furniture and cars and like for landlords they have to list in addition to their income they have to list their assets and liabilities and it doesn't include like in addition to checking and sales tax they have to list their retirement accounts like the 40 one k and the real property and cars and clothing and furnitures and art. >> this form that police station is not that different from the tenant hardship application that we used to ice
2:59 am
prior to the recent changes in our tenant hardship application procures that got rid of most of the categories that only changed for capital improvements the tenants if their filing for a hardship increase the rent board will have them file expect for real prospected if someone is an art collector we don't care. >> delegating we want to know the process so nike question is given this application we have here that currently requires landlords to list their real property and audible and art and
3:00 am
furnitures which of those will be on little new application especially for this micro mom and pop you know the retired person that maybe live in one building and rents out the other unit would the rent board expect them to sell assets. >> nobody is expected to sell one building. >> if they have 7. >> if people have expenses that look moderate but remember the deferral is not going to make this go away. with your to have tenant for relocation expenses t